Images in the forums

[RichardtheSane]

Hi Pekka

I'll say again I love what you have done with the forum :D
I have noticed that the images users have posted are currently not displaying in share photo's and critique, just letting you know in case there is a problem with either my config or the forum.

RIchard

[Pekka]

Thanks Richard,

I can see all the photos in Share photos and Critique corner. Anyone else have problems seeing e.g. this photo (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22574)??

[sdommin]

I like the new forum style, too, but is there a reason why images can't be their original, posted size like they used to be? The 400-pixel restriction is a bit small, in my opinion.

[Pekka]

I like the new forum style, too, but is there a reason why images can't be their original, posted size like they used to be? The 400-pixel restriction is a bit small, in my opinion.

Just click on image and you will see the original size. People started posting so big images it made it difficult to read the posts and most people can not see them on e.g. 1024 wide screens. Also, this change makes the forum more friendly to browsing with portable devices.

[defordphoto]

Thanks Richard,

I can see all the photos in Share photos and Critique corner. Anyone else have problems seeing e.g. this photo (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22574)??

That shows up just fine. I like the click on for original size option. Cool!

[RichardtheSane]

Looks like the issue is my config. I couldn't see any images untill I disabled the latest version of zone alarm I have running. I'll have a play with the ZA config and post what needs doing to make sure everything works fine. :D :D

[RichardtheSane]

OK, that was easy!

Zone alarm has an ad blocking feature that will kill pop ups and banner ads, you need to set the ad blocking in zone alarm to medium so it doesn't block banner ads before you can see the images in the forum.

I can only assume it sees the code behing the resize of images as some ad generation code. It isn't very clever really :D :D

[Pekka]

No, the code is plain old simple html image and link tags...

[RichardtheSane]

Well that is really bizarre. I think it is just safe to say zone alarm is stupid, and if anyone else has that problem then turning ad-blocking down to medium fixes it :?

[defordphoto]

I run ZA Pro here and have mine locked down pretty tight. I see the images just fine.

[sdommin]

I like the new forum style, too, but is there a reason why images can't be their original, posted size like they used to be? The 400-pixel restriction is a bit small, in my opinion.

Just click on image and you will see the original size. People started posting so big images it made it difficult to read the posts and most people can not see them on e.g. 1024 wide screens. Also, this change makes the forum more friendly to browsing with portable devices.

I understand, but couldn't the limit be more like 600 or 700 pixels? That would fit on most peoples' screens and wouldn't require opening a new window to view a picture. The 400 pixel limit causes compression artifacts on the original page.

[evilenglishman]

--

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well that is really bizarre. I think it is just safe to say zone alarm is stupid, and if anyone else has that problem then turning ad-blocking down to medium fixes it :?

What will you do when XP service pack 2 comes out?
I.E. will have built in pop-up blocking

Oh ,. thats hilarious.. Pop ups only happen because IE was built with scripts to allow them. IE desn't need more software to block pop ups,... it needs less code to idsable the "feature" that MS put there in the first place :?

[Anonymous]

I like the new forum style, too, but is there a reason why images can't be their original, posted size like they used to be? The 400-pixel restriction is a bit small, in my opinion.

Just click on image and you will see the original size. People started posting so big images it made it difficult to read the posts and most people can not see them on e.g. 1024 wide screens. Also, this change makes the forum more friendly to browsing with portable devices.

Forum looks nice, but I don't like the image resize thing. I know I can perform an extra click to view the image in full size, but I do enough clicks on the internet in a day.

Why not find use image size constraints that would only affect very large images, and leave reasonably sized images unaffected? The image constraints are a little small.

[Pekka]

Why not find use image size constraints that would only affect very large images, and leave reasonably sized images unaffected? The image constraints are a little small.

Of course I could put in code to detect image size and reduce it (even with sharpening) if needed. But I have to think about CPU power of the server and page load slowdown this feature would make. Is this REALLY something that is absolutely required to make this site tolerable?

I can make the photos e.g. 500 instead of 400 wide if size matters. Or put in some detect code. But there has so far been only a couple of users complaining about forced sizes so I'll keep on watching comments before I decide what to do.

[sdommin]

I can make the photos e.g. 500 instead of 400 wide if size matters. Or put in some detect code. But there has so far been only a couple of users complaining about forced sizes so I'll keep on watching comments before I decide what to do.

Maybe this would be a good topic for a poll.

[msvadi]

I can make the photos e.g. 500 instead of 400 wide if size matters. Or put in some detect code. But there has so far been only a couple of users complaining about forced sizes so I'll keep on watching comments before I decide what to do.

Maybe this would be a good topic for a poll.


I believe that only on rare occations viewers will be checking originals. I also think that 400 or 500 pixels is too extreme. I think that many posters here were taking a very good care of pictures they posted. At least, the regular posters. I think that the limit should be something like 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high. This will filter out pics that are too large and leave web optimized photos unaffected.

I've noticed that this issue has been raised in other threads too, for example here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22851

Just my thoughts. Otherwise, I like the look of the new forum, great job! Just one more comment. In my opinion it makes sense to unite "critique" and "share" forums. they perform a very similar function, but two boards splits users into two groups.

[Ikinaa]

Pekka, one question,

as far as I see it, your server doesn't resize the images, but the client-browser does, which reduces them only in viewing size, but not in file-size
or am I mistaken?

[Leighow]

Why not find use image size constraints that would only affect very large images, and leave reasonably sized images unaffected? The image constraints are a little small.

Of course I could put in code to detect image size and reduce it (even with sharpening) if needed. But I have to think about CPU power of the server and page load slowdown this feature would make. Is this REALLY something that is absolutely required to make this site tolerable?

..... SOME QUOTE DELETED ..... But there has so far been only a couple of users complaining about forced sizes so I'll keep on watching comments before I decide what to do.

PEKKAYou see your server speed and trafic statistics.

MY POSTS ARE USUALLY ABOUT 100K and 9in by 6 in images.
They looked good to me at this size! I admit that I did not give any thought to server speed. Plus, whenever my machine seemed slow, I would blame my IP (cable).

TOLERABILTY is YOU CALL:
If you see advantages at your end, then you must call the shot. Certainly several other other sites that Ive passed through without posting start with a thumbnail and require a click. One thing for sure, to comment on an image, I will always click and enlarge.

[Don Ellis]

Hi Pekka,

If there is a concern about size, I would prefer to see a maximum size for your forum, with code that doesn't display anything larger.

The resizing causes a few problems:

1. It introduces artifacts that essentially destroy all the post-processing work done on the photo.

2. It still leaves the message even on photos that didn't require resizing -- so that when you click on them, you get an identical photo (annoying).

3. Many people aren't going to click -- too much time and bother -- so posters know that many people aren't going to see their photos as intended.

I don't know if it applies here, but I believe Internet Explorer has a default feature that reduces the size of photos to fit the screen, although perhaps that's for single shots on a single screen (don't recall).

Anyway, I would prefer no resizing... although I could happily live with a maximum image size.

I know this whole change-over must be a huge task, and I don't want you to think I don't appreciate all your work, both recently and since I've known you. But the point of this entire forum is photography, and when photos aren't being shown to their best advantage I think it's a move in the wrong direction.

Cheers,

Don

[Pekka]

Please see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22883